Hijabs in higher schools: pros and cons
11 topics и One message

There is no uniform approach to religious attributes. Some higher schools, for example, introduce provisions prohibiting the wearing in their school "of the clothes indicating the belonging to some particular nationality or religion," which causes negative reaction, in particular, of students from Northern Caucasus. They believe that the true purpose of these initiatives is to ban the wearing of hijabs.The user with the nick Amnistiya believes such protests to be exaggeration, and points to the fact that in some higher schools the observance of strict dress code is mandatory: "Medical educational institutions have always has their dress code... conditioned by the nature of their chosen specialities... one of the most socially demanded and versatile professions should be free of personal ambitions and declared provisions of the Constitution..."The user stuart2 points to the fact that the right to wear hijab is guaranteed by the Russia's Constitution: "'…to freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs, and act in accordance therewith' – this is a quote from Article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. There is no sense to debate. 'Wearing religious clothes is a most important part of a person's ethics, which is not contrary to one's civil and public duties' (М. Shevchenko:http://kavpolit.com/blogs/shevchenkomax/8084/). It's hard not to agree with it. And if the nations of Russia so much dislike the religious attributes of gentiles, then, it's time to talk about editing Article 28."The user with the nick arznevmuskia believes that similar bans are only spoiling the image of the higher school that adopts them, and offers higher school bosses to pay attention to more pressing topics: "The position of the higher school is not surprising. In general, I have a feeling that we live in a mono-national and monotheistic state. What do they have against a hijab? Don't they have other problems in the higher school? And what foreign girls should do? They wouldn't go without scarves. The most interesting point is that they had paid for training; and, probably, quite a lot. OK, you are free to introduce a ban on hijab – and they'll all leave and take their money to some other country; as if we have plenty of money here. So much that we are discussing sequestration of the yearly budget by 16-17 percent. In conclusion: education abroad brings billions into the budgets of higher schools and countries, where they think with their heads, not other parts of the body. And they are fighting for students, be them in hijabs or any other clothes, because by receiving money from them, they give them, apart of training, a part of their culture. These students return home, and remember the people, their culture, etc. Recollect, how many foreigners had been educated in the USSR; and how they are now treating Russia. It's stupid to rush on hijabs and tune people against you. We should look a bit forward and make people – be them in hijabs, or in cassocks, or in dressing gowns, or even in fig-leaves – loyal to ourselves, not enemies."The largest count of votes was won by the comment of the user with the nick Monro, who criticises the attack on the freedom (including the religious one) of people's choice, if they don't break laws; the user believes that such initiatives are aimed against national and confessional "minorities":"I've ever thought that a fundamental distinction of democracy from other forms of ruling is in the freedom of choice: whether to wear some strict religious clothes, or dress to one's own discretion – the main point here that it should not prejudice others' rights and freedoms. I've never treated myself to be a religious fanatic, and, possibly, I'm more secular than many others here, who blame the Islam; nevertheless, still, I don't like any attacks on one's choice, be it of clothes, or viewpoints, provided the person abides by the law. Most probably, in this case, we are dealing with ordinary human rottenness, when a stronger human tried to suppress a weaker one – it's always easy to find a reason, since this law is aimed, first of all, against the national minorities, professing other faiths, conquered by Orthodox empires. It's quite easy to guess that the law was initiated by the Orthodox clergy and neo-nationalists […], who sit in the top echelons of this country's power."